When Qatar halted gas liquefaction operations in early March 2026 following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the company didn’t simply absorb the loss quietly. It declared force majeure, formally notifying counterparties that it could no longer meet its delivery obligations through no fault of its own. Within days, Kuwait and Bahrain followed with similar declarations of their own. Force majeure in freight contracts moved from a clause buried in the fine print to a live, active mechanism shaping how billions of dollars in energy and cargo obligations were handled in real time. For freight forwarders and the members who rely on them, this raises a question that deserves a clear answer: when can a carrier or shipper actually walk away from contractual obligations because of a disruptive event, and when can’t they?
What Force Majeure in Freight Contracts Actually Means
Force majeure comes from French legal tradition, translating roughly to “superior force.” In a freight contract, a force majeure clause excuses a party from liability when an event beyond their reasonable control prevents them from performing their obligations. That might mean a carrier can’t deliver cargo on schedule, or a shipper can’t load an agreed volume, without either party facing the financial penalties the contract would otherwise impose.
It’s worth understanding that force majeure has no fixed, universal meaning. Under English common law, for example, force majeure is described as a creature of contract rather than a standalone legal doctrine, meaning a contract subject to English law needs an explicit force majeure clause for either party to claim its protection. Without that express language, a party facing genuine disruption would need to rely on a different and narrower legal doctrine instead. This single point explains why two freight contracts covering similar cargo on similar routes can produce completely different outcomes when the same disruptive event hits both of them.
What Force Majeure Typically Covers
Most force majeure clauses in freight contracts list specific qualifying events rather than relying on vague language. Common categories include war, acts of terrorism, riots and civil unrest, natural disasters, epidemics and pandemics, government sanctions, labor strikes, and sometimes broader catch-all language covering any event beyond a party’s reasonable control.
The 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis offers a clear real-world test of how this plays out. Iran’s closure of the strait following military strikes from the United States and Israel directly disrupted the ability of multiple Gulf energy producers to fulfill delivery commitments. Several Gulf nations invoked force majeure on gas and oil shipments, citing their inability to safely move cargo through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. This distinction matters considerably in any force majeure analysis. War is generally treated as a foreseeable contractual risk, one that sophisticated parties are expected to price into their agreements. But the scale and totality of the strait’s closure, an near-complete shutdown of one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, arguably exceeded what either party could reasonably have anticipated when the underlying contracts were signed.
Labour disputes provide another concrete example. During the 2024 ILA port strikes affecting US East and Gulf Coast ports, several major container lines invoked force majeure when they found themselves unable to fulfill contracts due to inaccessible ports. Whether that invocation held up depended entirely on whether the underlying contracts specifically listed strikes or labor disputes as qualifying events. Contracts that included this language supported the carriers’ position. Contracts that didn’t left the question open to dispute.
What Force Majeure Does Not Cover
This is where many shippers and even some forwarders misunderstand the clause’s actual reach. Force majeure is not a general escape hatch for any disruption that makes performance harder or more expensive. It specifically does not cover events that the parties could reasonably have anticipated, events within a party’s own control, or situations in which alternative means of performance, even costly ones, remain available.
A landmark 2024 UK Supreme Court ruling involving a contract for carrying bauxite from Guinea to Ukraine illustrates this distinction precisely. When US sanctions made payment in US dollars legally problematic for the charterer, the shipowner declared force majeure rather than accepting payment in euros instead, even though the charterer offered to cover any resulting currency losses. The case worked through multiple court levels with mixed outcomes before the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that taking reasonable steps to overcome a force majeure event does not require accepting a fundamentally different, non-contractual form of performance. In other words, a party can’t be forced to accept different payment terms, different routing, or different delivery conditions than what the contract specifically calls for, even if those alternatives would technically solve the underlying problem.
This ruling reinforced something important for anyone drafting or relying on these clauses: the exact wording matters enormously, and courts will hold parties to what the contract actually says rather than what might seem fair or reasonable in hindsight.
Higher costs alone are rarely sufficient grounds either. Fuel price spikes, war risk insurance premium increases, and freight rate escalation are exactly the kind of market disruption that force majeure clauses tend to handle poorly, since these are financial consequences of an event rather than an actual inability to perform. A shipper facing dramatically higher costs because vessels are rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope instead of through a contested chokepoint generally cannot invoke force majeure simply because the route became more expensive. The cargo can still move. It’s just costlier to move it.
The Notice and Mitigation Requirements Forwarders Should Know
Even where a force majeure event genuinely applies, the affected party typically can’t simply stop performing without further obligation. Most clauses require formal written notice within a specified window, often within days of the triggering event, and many require the affected party to demonstrate ongoing efforts to mitigate the disruption’s impact on the other side of the contract.
These notice provisions function as conditions precedent in many contracts, meaning a party that fails to provide timely notice may lose the right to rely on force majeure altogether, regardless of how legitimate the underlying disruption actually was. For forwarders managing contracts on behalf of members, this is a critical operational detail. A carrier or counterparty invoking force majeure informally, without following the contract’s specific notice procedure, may not have a valid claim even if the underlying event would otherwise qualify.
Force majeure provisions in container shipping contracts also frequently include an obligation to resume performance once the disrupting event ends, rather than treating the clause as grounds for permanently walking away from the agreement. A force majeure declaration during a temporary port closure, for instance, generally suspends obligations rather than terminating the contract outright.
Why This Matters for Forwarders in 2026
The pattern emerging from 2026’s geopolitical disruptions, the Strait of Hormuz closure chief among them, is that force majeure clauses are being tested more frequently and more rigorously than in recent memory. Legal advisors covering the current Iran conflict have noted that not every disruption neatly fits a force majeure framing. Some situations are better classified under hardship or price adjustment provisions, others under war risk and safe-port clauses common in charterparty agreements, and others under government action provisions entirely separate from force majeure. Choosing the right framework matters because each carries different evidentiary requirements and different remedies.
For forwarders advising members on contract risk in this environment, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Force majeure clauses are not boilerplate filler. They are precisely worded risk allocation tools, and their value depends entirely on whether the specific language anticipated the disruption actually being faced. Reviewing force majeure language before a crisis hits, rather than during one, gives members a far stronger position when the next disruption inevitably arrives.